Petitioners sought quashing of an FIR and subsequent proceedings under Cr.P.C. Section 482. The Court held that with two witnesses remaining for trial, it was not just or expedient to interfere at this stage and disposed of the petition accordingly.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
Crl.Misc.No.M- 20651 of 2008
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Crl.Misc.No.M- 20651 of 2008
Date of decision: 9.7.2012
Lajpat Rai @ Lazee and others
......Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, DAG, Punjab.
Mr.B.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ****
SABINA, J.
This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C for short) for quashing of FIR No.107 dated 12.9.2007 under Sections 306/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station Moonak District Sangrur and all the subsequent proceedings ariving therefrom.
During the course of arguments, it has transpired that only two witnesses remained to be examined during trial. In these circumstances, at this stage, it would not be just and expedient for this Court to interfere, while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(SABINA) JUDGE
July 09, 2012 anita
1 issue framed by the court
Whether this Court should interfere to quash proceedings where only two witnesses remain to be examined at the trial stage.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Lajpat Rai @ Lazee and others
State of Punjab
another
Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
